Injured Reserve in the new CBA

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Takeo, Oct 5, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Takeo

    Takeo Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2003
    Messages:
    20,198
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Can anyone explain how it works? Is there a particular number of games you must miss or a particular time frame in which you must be inactive if placed on IR? I'm assuming salary still counts against the cap.
     
  2. kdb209

    kdb209 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    16,272
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    126
    24 days and 10 games minimum. The injured players salary still counts against the cap, but the replacement players do not (sort of).

    From the CBA FAQ:

    Postings of Article 50, covering injuries and the cap, have appeared on some blogs, and it appears that the replacement salary issue is a bit complicated. My reading of the article is that first the replacement salary uses up all available cap space, and then may exceed the cap by up to the salary of the IR player. So, it isn't as simple as "the replacement player salary doesn't count".
     
  3. SJeasy

    SJeasy Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    12,538
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    disabled
    Location:
    San Jose
    There is an additional thing about IR which I think is 7 days based on S. Parker's IR status with Sharks placed on 9/30 and eligible to return 10/7. I suspect this is only to do with roster size not cap.
     
  4. kdb209

    kdb209 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    16,272
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    126
    I agree - opens a roster spot but no impact on the cap.

    This is pretty much the Injured Reserve List from the old CBA:

    The more I see evidence of terms from the new CBA, with the obvious exception of the cap issues and specificly noted areas of change (FA status, callup waivers etc), they look more and more like the terms of the old CBA, Some quoted sections were pretty much verbatim from the old.

    On the whole, I think there is a lot more the same under the new CBA than different.

    As a rule of thumb, I've taken the position that until I see evidence that something is handled differently under the new CBA, the basic terms and rules of the old one are still pretty much applicable. I've seen very few cases where this has not held true.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"